Thommo - how quick was he?'

[express bowling]

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

So Holding wasn't a 95 mph bowler as spread by Muloghonto, neither was Andy Roberts.  Remember, this was a fast bowling comp so they must have all tried to bowl as fast as they could and then achieved that pace.  This may not be their usual pace that they bowled on average.

 

I said the same earlier.

 

We saw in 1999 as well that pacers like Srinath and McGrath clocked higher speeds when they were being measured in a speed competition.  Their regular speeds were often significantly lower in 1999.

 

Same would be the case with Holding, Roberts and Thomson.

 

The  fastest balls of Roberts and Holding in an innings must have been 140 k to 145 k range in 1975-76 , taking cue from these fastest speeds in this competition.

 

Quote

Regarding Lillie, he was slowed down by 75 due to a back injury. He was at his quickest in 1971. This is Liliee at his quickest.

 

 

Many pacers have a couple of quick years and then their speeds reduce due to injury / niggles.  We have seen the same with Munaf and Zaheer too.  Their general speeds in their peak 6 or 7 years are more important than their quickest year.

 

Lillee's speeds from say 1971 to 1978 would be more important.

Edited October 17, 2017 by express bowling

[cric_fan]

You can only go by the word of batsmen who faced him and was apparently very, very swift.

[Rightarmfast]

I also want to add one point which will be very controversial. However, the bowlers of the past can look quicker and awkward also because of the technology used while recording. The cameras and lenses then were not of the quality what we see now. So often, in videos of 60's 70's, its difficult to see the ball clealy as the visuals are not clear. Which gives an illusion that the ball was quick.

However, the technology and angles are so improved that we can see the ball clearly leaving the bowlers hand and reaching the batsmen. We are able to see it clearly, hence not being bamboozled into believing someone could be that quick.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

 
Speeds recorded in 1975 and 76  were release speeds.
 
 " On that one day in Perth, Jeff Thomson had recorded release speeds on 200/400 frames per second photosonic cameras of 159.49kph and 160.45kph (99.7mph), less than 0.3mph short of the magical 100mph mark. In fact, two men considered in the 'fastest ever' category, Michael Holding (148.54kph) and Andy Roberts (150.67kph) were both 10kph slower than Thomson on that day and an unwell Dennis Lillee (139.03kph) was 20kph slower. "
 
 
These pacers knew that they were being measured just that day for a few overs in a competition and bowled as quick as they can.  Their regular fastest speeds should actually be 5 k to 3 k less..... and these were their fastest balls and not average speeds.
 
 

How can cameras record release speeds?The frame rates are mentioned because thats how they calculated speed.

Using the frames to calculate the time taken to cover distance from hand release to pitch point.Then calculating speed.

Only speed guns measure release speed.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

So Holding wasn't a 95 mph bowler as spread by Muloghonto, neither was Andy Roberts.  Remember, this was a fast bowling comp so they must have all tried to bowl as fast as they could and then achieved that pace.  This may not be their usual pace that they bowled on average. Regarding Lillie, he was slowed down by 75 due to a back injury. He was at his quickest in 1971. This is Liliee at his quickest.
 
 

At his peak Holding was 95mph.Not all day long like mulo said but top speed.

[express bowling]

58 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

How can cameras record release speeds?The frame rates are mentioned because thats how they calculated speed.

Using the frames to calculate the time taken to cover distance from hand release to pitch point.Then calculating speed.

Only speed guns measure release speed.

 

If you study the modern " hawk-eye technology "  .... 6 high speed cameras are used,  placed in different positions.  They track the ball right from the time it leaves  the bowler's hand to the time it goes dead. 

 

Speeds of the ball start to be  calculated along the trajectory of the delivery after a few frames are recorded.  You get release speed, speed on pitching, speed at the batsman's end, speed where the keeper is ....  all the data are available.

 

Basically, the release speeds are calculated using high speed cameras after the ball travels a very short distance after leaving the hand ....  and the distance and time are both recorded.

 

Till about 8 to 10 years back, they used to occasionally show hawk-eye calculated speeds at every point, from release to the keeper.

 

If you note the ball-by-ball radar gun speeds shown instantaneously on TV and compare them with the ball-by-ball  hawk-eye high-speed-camera speeds available on the BCCI and ICC websites , you will see that they are very similar ..... proving that the hawk-eye speeds are release speeds too.

 

In the 1975 competition, the same thing was done. There was a video available on  youtube where the scientist explained the process. I can't find it now but will post it if I find it.

Edited October 17, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

20 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

even if we check the blindspot of the 200/400 frames camera, for sake of argument that the exact release speed is not measured, it will be somewhere around the 15cm range ,now how much pace can be lost in 15cms ? if you say 5 ks then over the next distances as well you will keep losing pace and will be down to nearly 0 kmph over 500 odd cms which clearly isnt the case.

 

1 )  It is average speed over the first 10 cm or 15 cm .... so speed after 5 cm or 7.5 cm  perhaps.

 

Speed reduces by about 20 kph after 20 yards or 1829 cm

 

Speed reduction after 5 cm would be 0.05 kph if linear reduction ... so, insignificant reduction.

 

2 )  Radar guns use Doppler effect ... and a little traveled distance is required too after ball release to detect the change in frequency of the returned radar signal ..... hence comparable with high-speed camera release speeds.

Edited October 17, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

9 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

i think they lose more speed , close to 30-40 ks over the distance on a slow pitch  but most of it is lost after the ball pitches,they lose little pace due to friction in the air,5kph is a lot to be lost at the release due to the blindspot of the camera.

 

Yes, lost speed varies from pitch to pitch but rarely more than 30 kph on a slow pitch.

 

Even if you take it to be 40 kph and equally spaced reduction ( which is not the case as most speed is lost after pitching ) ... reduction in speed over the first 5 cm would be 0.10 kph

 

And radar guns have a similar issue

[Malcolm Merlyn]

these days they use hawkeye cameras not speedguns,even  guns vary in pace they are not not all the same, remember in nz the speeds used to be quite slow till they got an uniform setting

They use integrated technology.Hawk Eye Cameras,speed Guns.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

 
If you study the modern " hawk-eye technology "  .... 6 high speed cameras are used,  placed in different positions.  They track the ball right from the time it leaves  the bowler's hand to the time it goes dead. 
 
Speeds of the ball start to be  calculated along the trajectory of the delivery after a few frames are recorded.  You get release speed, speed on pitching, speed at the batsman's end, speed where the keeper is ....  all the data are available.
 
Basically, the release speeds are calculated using high speed cameras after the ball travels a very short distance after leaving the hand ....  and the distance and time are both recorded.
 
Till about 8 to 10 years back, they used to occasionally show hawk-eye calculated speeds at every point, from release to the keeper.
 
If you note the ball-by-ball radar gun speeds shown instantaneously on TV and compare them with the ball-by-ball  hawk-eye high-speed-camera speeds available on the BCCI and ICC websites , you will see that they are very similar ..... proving that the hawk-eye speeds are release speeds too.
 
In the 1975 competition, the same thing was done. There was a video available on  youtube where the scientist explained the process. I can't find it now but will post it if I find it.

The cameras measure trajectory and the speed gun measures speed.They are then integrated to show a combined graphics to the viewer.

Cameras cannot measure speed unless they have integrated speed guns.But you can calculate speed of ball over the flight using cameras.

[express bowling]

26 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

The cameras measure trajectory and the speed gun measures speed.They are then integrated to show a combined graphics to the viewer.

Cameras cannot measure speed unless they have integrated speed guns.

 

https://sporteology.com/bowling-speed-measured-cricket/

 

" Hawk eye is referred to as a technology that is used to measure the speed of ball as the way it is bowled.  "  ( speed along the trajectory of the ball  )

 

And this is not possible with radar guns. which basically depend on the displacement of the ball from the radar gun.

 

 

 

Quote

But you can calculate speed of ball over the flight using cameras.

And that flight could be the first 15 cm too

Edited October 17, 2017 by express bowling

[Malcolm Merlyn]

And that flight could be the first 15 cm too

That flight can be 15cm or even 1.5cm but that depends on the fps of the camera.What is the fps of the hawk eye camera and what is the fps of cameras used in 1975?

Hawk Eye uses 1000fps cameras yet separate speed gun radar is used to get ball speed.

I am not even going into the cutting edge software and computing technology used by hawk eye.And still radars are used to get the speed of the ball.

[bsriharsha]

Thommo's speed would probably be around 145-150 as a guestimate which is still lively but not a 158-160kmph bowler that ageists would like us to believe.

I don't buy the argument of him being the fastest bowler ever because of the equipment being used to record speeds at that time. The error %age in speedguns in itself is enough to question his actual speeds. 

One of the reasons Thommo was genuinely scary was because of the lack of a helmet rule and the livelier pitches being prepared which probably ensured that the ball didn't slow down enough off the wicket. 

[rkt.india]

38 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

That flight can be 15cm or even 1.5cm but that depends on the fps of the camera.What is the fps of the hawk eye camera and what is the fps of cameras used in 1975?

Hawk Eye uses 1000fps cameras yet separate speed gun radar is used to get ball speed.

I am not even going into the cutting edge software and computing technology used by hawk eye.And still radars are used to get the speed of the ball.

Isn't it possible that the tech used in 1975 extrapolate the speeds? Both things are possible. They might have lower speeds, but if speeds were  lower by 5 kph, you think Thomson was bowling 165 KPH because that is a ridiculous claim from you.

[express bowling]

3 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

That flight can be 15cm or even 1.5cm but that depends on the fps of the camera.What is the fps of the hawk eye camera and what is the fps of cameras used in 1975?

Hawk Eye uses 1000fps cameras yet separate speed gun radar is used to get ball speed.

I am not even going into the cutting edge software and computing technology used by hawk eye.And still radars are used to get the speed of the ball.

 

1 )   I have not found any article / information which suggests that radar-gun readings are integrated in the hawk-eye technology in cricket. Some articles actually suggest otherwise like this one

 

 " To pick the speed of a ball requires calibration. Hawk-Eye uses six cameras that track the ball out of the bowler’s hand until it is no longer in play. The position of the ball is recorded numerous times each second. Any errors are tended to immediately. But it hasn’t stopped participants from pointing out the technology’s flaws.

So is there anything better? Not really. The alternative, the speed gun, throws up varied readings. " 

 

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/measuring-ball-speed-in-cricket

 

If you find any article which states that only radar guns are used to measure speeds in hawk-eye then please provide a link. It will be an interesting read.

 

 

2 )   Radars are still used separately by telecasters because it gets the speed immediately ..... while the speed calculation results from high speed cameras take a bit more time to come.... it comes after a couple of balls are bowled because data from 6 cameras are analyzed.  Just think of the ball tracking in DRS and it takes some time to come.

 

 " There are few advantages of this technology: ( radar  gun )

• It is instantaneous and records the speed immediately as the ball passes the gun. This is why the speed is shown on the screen immediately after the ball is delivered. The gun works efficiently and helps getting the exact possible speed of the bowl.  "

 

http://www.cricheaven.com/methods-of-measuring-speed-in-cricket/

 

 

 

 

p.s -  The article which you initially quoted was written in May 2002.  Hawk-eye technology was introduced to cricket in 2001 and became regular from 2011. Hence, there is reference of radar guns for measuring speeds in that article .

Edited October 17, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Isn't it possible that the tech used in 1975 extrapolate the speeds? Both things are possible. They might have lower speeds, but if speeds were  lower by 5 kph, you think Thomson was bowling 165 KPH 

If the speeds measured in 1975 were calculated over the entire flight of the ball  ( although the article clearly states them to be release speeds )  then it would have to be increased roughly by 10 kph to 15 kph , as speeds decreased by 20 k to 30 k on reaching the batsman. and 25 k to 35 k on reaching the keeper, and effectively rough averages would be taken to calculate speeds.

 

Does that seem possible , Thomsonn bowling at 170 k to 175 k or more release speeds   ?  

Edited October 17, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

15 hours ago, MultiB48 said:

to measure speed 200 fps is enough you dont need 1000 fps ,

 

The article states this 

 

  " On that one day in Perth, Jeff Thomson had recorded release speeds on 200/400 frames per second photosonic cameras " 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/cricinfoat20/content/current/story/661125.html

 

Perhaps the distance used for calculation of release speeds maybe a bit more than nowadays, lets say double .... and would cause a difference of 0.3 kph or thereabouts from what we get nowadays using high-speed cameras of 1000 fps.

Edited October 18, 2017 by express bowling

[Malcolm Merlyn]

5 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Isn't it possible that the tech used in 1975 extrapolate the speeds? Both things are possible. They might have lower speeds, but if speeds were  lower by 5 kph, you think Thomson was bowling 165 KPH because that is a ridiculous claim from you.

We already have 4 bowlers breaking 160ks in last 15 years of use of speed guns.Why 165 is a ridiculous claim? I agree that 170 or 180ks as claimed by few is ridiculous but 165 isnt.

[Rightarmfast]

5 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

We already have 4 bowlers breaking 160ks in last 15 years of use of speed guns.Why 165 is a ridiculous claim? I agree that 170 or 180ks as claimed by few is ridiculous but 165 isnt.

The exact reason why 165 isn't possible. 2 of those 4 fast bowlers were arguably the fastest bowlers ever, yet all they could manage was a single delivery at 160 in their entire career!

If it was so easy, and possible, they would be bowling 160 on a regular basis. 

[Trichromatic]

13 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

We already have 4 bowlers breaking 160ks in last 15 years of use of speed guns.Why 165 is a ridiculous claim? I agree that 170 or 180ks as claimed by few is ridiculous but 165 isnt.

This doesn't exactly prove it, but baseball has always recorded bit faster than cricket and the barrier of 102 mph is rarely crossed. I guess it has happened like 5-10 times max.